Online Family Trees and why I have Succumbed

I have never been a fan of online family trees. Whilst absolutely respecting other people’s right to make whatever choice suits them, it was something that I always vowed, quite vehemently, I would never do. I was wrong. First of all, a word about why I chose to keep my family tree offline. When I started my research, over forty years ago, there was no online. I suspect if I were a new recruit to genealogy now I would make some different choices. When I got fed up with hand-drawing copies of family trees to share with others, I capitalised on the fact that I had a computer and purchased some genealogy software; Family Tree Maker. I can’t remember exactly when this was but it was on floppy disks and I think it was version 3. I still use Family Tree Maker. The trees it produces are not ideal but it suits me better than the alternatives. The fact that my handwriting is an exercise in advanced paleography played no small part in my decision to abandon hand-drawn trees.

Let me be clear, my reluctance to put a family tree online had nothing to do with me not being willing to share my information; I have been doing that since 1977. The surnames that I am interested in have been widely advertised for decades and are listed on this website. Over the years, many distant relatives have benefited from my research and vice versa. Purely because of the length of time I have been researching, I often have more to give than receive but that is fine. I love to share information but I do like it to be a two-way process. I want it to be accompanied by a conversation about the sources I have used and why have I made the connections that I have, or why I have not. I want to share the stories and the contextual detail that I have researched, not just the names and dates. To this end, some narrative accounts about my ancestors are now also available on my website.

This has worked well for me until very recently. Why would I change? I have been vocal about my opinion of many of the genealogies that you find online. Let’s just say I am not impressed by vast, unsourced, ‘grab it all’ trees containing biologically impossible data and scores of unverifiable connections. I do accept that there are well-researched, accurate pedigrees, compiled by proficient genealogists on the www but there is also an overwhelming amount of dross. So much so that extracting the gems has made looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack seem like child’s play.

People have often marvelled that I can do family history research without an Ancestry account, particularly as I do still do some professional research. I have never felt the need. I have subscribed to FindmyPast since before it was called FindmyPast and that suits me because the coverage is better for the counties that I need most often. When I began researching in the years B.C. (before computers), tracing your family history was impossible without going to archives and this is still key to the work I do. In fact, I believe that archival research is still essential for all researchers, as so much is not online.

A few months ago, having had my DNA tested with other companies, I decided that I might as well add Ancestry DNA to my collection of autosomal results. Before I parted with my hard cash, I considered whether having no Ancestry subscription and no online tree would make the test worthless. I realised that it would hamper my chance of encouraging contacts but I decided that it would still be useful, especially at sale price. The results arrived. I was offered a significantly reduced rate for an Ancestry subscription. So, tempted by the data sets, notably the London parish registers and PCC wills, I took out my first ever Ancestry subscription. I still had no intention of ever putting my tree online. I filled in my profile with my ancestral surnames but I resisted the exhortations to start my tree, even one that was private.

I had fun with my DNA matches, as expected, none of them close. I have two 3^rd-5^th cousins and 284 at 4^th-6^th cousin level, which I would guess is probably significantly fewer than most people. Some I had made contact with before. I could, I thought, just sit back, with my lack of tree and see if anyone contacted me. I worked out how some of the matches were connected to me using their public trees. I began to colour code them into groups. I was having fun. Everyone was banging on about ThruLines, that sounded fun too but of course I couldn’t connect to anyone with no tree. As I worked through my matches, I realised that I was prioritising those with public trees, of course I was, no real surprise. I contacted a few people, some replied, some didn’t, not unexpected. I found a third cousin in Australia, practically my closest living blood relative. Obviously, I reasoned, people are going to do the same as I did, start with those with public trees, then perhaps consider contacting a few with private trees if the common matches looked promising. With tens of thousands of matches, no one was ever going to get round to contacting poor little treeless me.

I umm and erred a bit and I took the plunge. My original intention was just to add my direct ancestors, not least because of the time it would take to add the results of forty years’ worth of research. The reasoning behind creating this tree meant that there was no point in making it private. My concession to privacy is that I have listed my parents as alive when they aren’t, so they can’t be seen and I would not consider adding my descendants. I still have numerous Cornish direct ancestors to add, some of those were acquired so long ago that they haven’t even made it to Family Tree Maker! I have filled in some siblings, particularly where it clarifies a DNA link and I will gradually add more.

Before I began, I worried if anyone would take an unsourced tree seriously (I wouldn’t) and I couldn’t face the thought of adding a trillion source citations, which I keep on a card index, yes, really, I do know it is 2019. Once I had begun, I realised that Ancestry make it quite easy to add sources, which was a relief. Their hints do contain some serious flights of fancy but these can be ignored. Of course, the sources that are attached to my Ancestry tree are a fraction of those that I have for some of these individuals but at least the tree is not unsourced.

Transferring a Gedcom wasn’t an option as I have multiple files. I could have created a composite tree by merging them but I thought it was quicker to start again. Everyone I have added has been verified using original sources, or images of those sources. I do not rely on indexes, although they are obviously a helpful gateway to the documents.  For this reason, I have not and will not, graft someone else’s tree on to my own. Although I am equally committed to researching them, I have made no attempt to add my children’s ancestors, as the point of this is to understand DNA matches and these are not relevant to that task.

Admitting you are wrong is difficult but I like to think that I am open to altering my opinions and alter them I have. I now have a tree on Ancestry, I am even quite proud of it. It will never be the primary method of keeping my information. There are several reasons for this not least because I want to be able to work on my tree when I am not online but I have ‘come round’ to a certain extent and who knows, maybe my opinion will change again.

Part of a tree created at Ancestry.co.uk

Fanny Amelia’s (family history) Story

Strictly of course it is only part of her story, as there is more to be found but if I wait until it is ‘finished’ I may wait forever. So here is my attempt to preserve the memory of a lady who has no living descendants and for whom we have no photograph (yet). She is someone who could so easily be lost to history. In fact, in the past, family members did a very good job of expunging her from the oral record. As her closest living relative (jointly with my six second cousins), I felt it was up to me to investigate her life and record what I discovered, warts and all.

Fanny Amelia was the third daughter of Philip and Mary Woolgar née Cardell and was born at 6.30pm on 5^th February 1848.[1] The time of birth on the certificate should indicate that this was a multiple birth but there are no other registrations for the quarter and district who could be the other sibling.[2] The address is indistinct but appears to be Cockers Haven, Finchley.[3] This almost certainly refers to a small settlement on the southern edge of Finchley Common, near the Red Lion, which was formerly named Cuckold’s Haven.[4] Finchley is now considered to be part of north London but in the mid-nineteenth century, was a small, newly-developing, settlement, distinct from the metropolis.

Fanny Amelia was baptised at St. Michael’s, Highgate on the 5^th of March 1848. Her father, Philip, was described as a gardener.[5] Fanny was a surprise when I discovered her existence in the 1980s, as part of my investigations into my family history. Tales of this family were woven into my earliest memories. Why had Fanny not taken her place alongside her siblings on the first family tree I devised at the age of seven? My great-aunt, from whom I gained most of my family stories of this branch, would have been an adult when Fanny died. The families lived in close proximity, surely they would have known each other. There were photographs and recollections of Fanny’s parents, her siblings and their families but nothing of Fanny remained. Although Fanny outlived all her brother and sisters, there was no mention of her. The only acknowledgement that there may have been an additional child was the vague suggestion that Philip and Mary might have had a daughter called Sophie, so even Fanny’s name was lost to the family history. Until that is, I began my adventures in the world of archives and microfilms, of ledgers and registers, long before the advent of the internet.

The whole family appear to have escaped enumeration in the 1851 census but there was Fanny, with her parents, in 1861[7] and 1871.[8] Fanny cannot be found in 1881.[9] It has been established that she is not the Amelia Woolgar who, in 1881, was working as the cook in the Alleyn Park,[10] household of hop merchant, Stanford Mountain.[11]

On 15^th November 1884, Fanny Amelia married widower, William Ellington, at St. Clement’s, Hastings, Sussex. The witnesses were Maude and H Bedwell and Thomas Covell. At the time of the marriage, William Ellington was a coachman.[12] He is inconsistent about his age and place of birth but the consensus seems to be that he was born about 1823 in Peterborough, Northamptonshire,[13] so he was considerably older than Fanny. William and his first wife, Helen, had been in service in Herne Hill for many years[14] and this is presumably how he and Fanny met.

William and Fanny Ellington’s son, George Frederick, was born in Hastings a year after they married.[15] There was another short-lived child, Richard Collings Stanley Ellington, who was born in 1891 and died the following year.[16] In 1891, the family were living in two rooms in part of 19 Cornfield Terrace, Hastings and William was working as a bath-chair man. Ten years later, the family had gained a room and were living at 100 Bohemia Road; William was still running his bath-chair business in Hastings and George was working as a compositor.[17] Although no death registration has been found for William Ellington,[18] by 1911 Fanny was a widow and can be found in the census visiting the Pierpoint family in Dulwich.[19] By this time, her son George was a boarder in the household of Harriet Blackmar, at 15 Duke Street, Eastbourne, Sussex and was still working as a compositor. [20]

On 2 May 1911, just weeks after the census was taken, Fanny was admitted to the workhouse in Constance Road, East Dulwich[21] because she was ‘temporarily disabled’ and ‘allegedly insane’. She was discharged a week letter, to Horton Asylum and described as being destitute and temporarily disabled.[22] Horton Asylum, in Epsom, Surrey, was to become noted for pyrotheraphy, an experimental treatment for the general paralysis of the insane, which was a manifestation of syphilis. This treatment involved infecting the sufferers with malaria. It was thought that the resulting high fever would destroy the spirochetes involved in syphilis. Horton was deemed suitable as it had an isolation unit, which would prevent the malaria spreading to other patients. It seems that this was pioneered in 1917, so Fanny, had she been suffering from general paralysis of the insane, would have escaped this treatment.[23]

I don’t know how long Fanny spent at Horton but on 30 December 1915, she was readmitted to the workhouse from 18 Hindmans Road. In 1911, this was the home of a younger generation of the Pierpoint family.[24] I can find no family connection with the Pierpoints, so perhaps they were just friends. Once again Fanny was regarded as ‘temporarily disabled’ and ‘allegedly insane’.[25] After just six days she was removed to Cane Hill Pauper Lunatic Asylum in Coulsdon, Surrey.[26] By this time, Horton had been requisitioned for military use.[27]

Fanny Ellington died in the asylum on 12 January 1922 from valvular disease of the heart and congestion of the lungs, both of an indefinite duration, hours after suffering a small cerebral haemorrhage. The death was registered by her son, George, who was then of 2 Grove Road, Chertsey, Surrey.[28] There was no mention of her mental state.

George Ellington married Lily Wade in 1932 in Islington district,[29] she was in her fifties so there were no children. In 1939 they were living in a tobacconist’s shop at 67 Guildford Street, Chertsey, which Lily ran; she was also a hairdresser.[30] George was still working as a compositor. They both died in 1960.[31]

The generosity of the genealogical world is outstanding. With the help of a friend, I have attempted to access the records of Cane Hill Asylum, which were allegedly in Croydon Museum. All they have is the bald statement of her admission. The quest is on for the medical records, which I understand from another helpful family historian, may be with the relevant NHS Trust. There is still the possibility of records for Horton Asylum, which are at the London Metropolitan Archives. I may have to call in another favour here. I also want to find out where she was buried; I have established that it was not at Cane Hill. The asylum was closed in 1992.[32]

So this is Fanny’s story. I do hope that more research will mean that I can add to it. Watch this space! In the absence of a picture of Fanny, I offer you her sisters, Caroline and Mary Ann [Polly], sadly, although Caroline had five daughters, she has no living descendants either. P.S. I am quite glad that I didn’t inherit the ears!

[1]    The birth certificate of Fanny Amelia Woolgar 1848, from the General Register Office.

[2]    General Registrar’s indexes of birth.

[3]    The birth certificate of Fanny Amelia Woolgar 1848, from the General Register Office.

[4]     A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 6, Friern Barnet, Finchley, Hornsey With Highgate. Originally published by Victoria County History, London, 1980. Via www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/middx/vol6/pp38-55  accessed 4 September 2019.

[5]    The baptism registers of Highgate, Middlesex, via www.ancestry.co.uk.

[6]    Oral evidence from Gwendoline Catherine Braund née Smith and Ella Mary Bird née Woolgar.

[7]    1861 census for Rosendale Road, Norwood, Surrey RG9 367 folio 56.

[8]    1871 census for 1 Rosendale Road, Norwood, Surrey RG10 692 folio 59.

[9]    Indexes to the 1881 census of England and Wales via www.findmypast.co.uk and www.ancestry.co.uk.

[10]  Alleyn Park is in Dulwich.

[11]  1881 census for Alleyn Park, Westbrook, Camberwell, Surrey RG11 669 folios 35 & 36. General Registrar’s indexes of birth and marriage. 1871 census for Warrior Road, Lambeth, Surrey RG10 679 folio 110.

[12]  The marriage certificate of Fanny Amelia Woolgar and William Ellington 1884, from the local Register Office.

[13]  1871 census for Herne Hill, Lambeth, Surrey RG10 686 folio 43.

[14]  1871 census for Herne Hill, Lambeth, Surrey RG10 686 folio 43.

[15]  General Registrar’s indexes of birth; 1891 census for 19 Cornfield Terrace, Hastings, Sussex RG12 764 folio 83.

[16]  General Registrar’s indexes of birth and death; 1911 census for 2 Upland Road, Dulwich, Surrey RG14 2469 folio 481.

[17]  1901 census for 100 Bohemia Road, Hastings Sussex RG13 869 folio 68.

[18]  General Registrar’s indexes of death.

[19]  1911 census for 2 Upland Road, Dulwich, Surrey RG14 2469 folio 481.

[20]   1911 census for 15 Duke Street, Eastbourne, Sussex RG14 4822 folio 162.

[21]   Constance Road Workhouse http://www.workhouses.org.uk/Camberwell/ accessed 4 September 2019.

[22]   1911 Admissions Register for Workhouse, Constance Road, East Dulwich, Surrey via www.ancestry.co.uk. Originals at London Metropolitan Archives CABG/185/31.

[23]  Horton Asylum www.countyasylums.co.uk/horton-asylum-epsom accessed 3 September 2019. Julius Wagner-Jauregg (1857-1940): Introducing fever therapy in the treatment of neurosyphilis www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24185088 accessed 4 September 2019.

[24] 1911 census for 18 Hindmans Road, East Dulwich RG14 2466 folio 401.

[25]  1915-16 Admissions Register for Workhouse, Constance Road, East Dulwich, Surrey via www.ancestry.co.uk.  Originals at London Metropolitan Archives CABG/185/40.

[26]  1915-16 Admissions Register for Workhouse, Constance Road, East Dulwich, Surrey via www.ancestry.co.uk.  Originals at London Metropolitan Archives CABG/185/40.

[27]  Cane Hill Asylum, Coulsdon, Surrey www.countyasylums.co.uk/cane-hill-coulsdon accessed 4 September 2019.

[28] Death certificate (pdf) of Fanny Amelia Ellington, from the General Registrar.

[29] General Registrar’s indexes of marriage.

[30] 1939 Register for 67 Guildford Road Chertsey, Surrey RG101/1876C/006/30 Letter Code: DMCC.

[31] General Registrar’s indexes of death.

[32] https://www.countyasylums.co.uk/cane-hill-coulsdon/ accessed 4 September 2019.

Ancestral Ill-health and a bit about Books

It has been a busy week, with some fascinating family history discoveries. As some of you will know, I have been publicly somewhat scathing about the works of fiction that are strewn across the internet, purporting to be someone’s family tree. Not wishing to delve too deeply into people who die before they are born, have children at the age of two, or are allegedly living in three different countries at one and the same time, I attempt to avoid these. Occasionally there may be a nugget of usefulness of course and my recent foray on to Ancestry.co.uk did lead to a photograph of my great great grandfather’s brother. I have a picture of g-g-grandfather and there is a likeness. I also found two people whose online trees bore some resemblance to reality and I was able to offer the owners copies of family photographs. One even replied, so I guess that is a bonus.

 

John and Thomas Dawson

My Ancestry DNA test is currently languishing in the lab waiting to be processed. Yes, I am going to join the ranks of those irritating testees who do not have a tree on Ancestry. I have however added my ancestral surnames to my profile back sufficiently far for any fourth cousins to look for a common ancestor.

I am, as anticipated, making use of some of the original documents that can be accessed via Ancestry, notably collections from London Metropolitan Archives. It was via some workhouse admissions’ and discharge registers that I discovered that my great great aunt had been in the county asylum. Coincidentally, my ‘In Sickness and in Death: researching the ill-health and deaths of your ancestors’ students were discussing asylum records this very week and even better, one has kindly volunteered to look up some potential records about great great aunt that are not online – aren’t people lovely? Now, if any kind soul is at the London Metropolitan Archives with a spare five minutes to investigate her stay in another asylum………

The great thing about running online courses is that you learn so much from your students. You may have spotted a Facebook post from me that referred to the list of 1832 cholera epidemic victims in Manchester. The transcription of this dataset is cunningly hidden away on FindmyPast and what a gem! For the benefit of those not on Facebook, here is the entry for 16 year old Elizabeth Aspin ‘No. 177, Elizabeth Aspin, commonly called Crazy Bess, aged 16. Residence Back Parliament-street. Employment: woman of the town. Constitution: stoutish. Natural susceptibility: subject to diarrhoea after drinking. Predisposing cause: alternately starved and drunk, often sleeping in the street. Exciting cause: drunk on the Reform celebration day the day before her attack, cried passionately when Laurence was taken to the hospital. Locality, crowding, filth &c. for the locality see case 181. Dates of attack and event: seized Friday, August 10th, at 11 pm, recovered August 30th. Communication or non-communication: no known communication with Laurence nor any body else.’ Further research suggests that she was baptised in Manchester in 1817, daughter of Thomas and Ellen and that she survived the epidemic, marrying George Townley in Radcliffe, Manchester in 1836 and moving to Salford.

Advance notice of a couple of book signing/buying opportunities. I will be giving a talk about Barefoot on the Cobbles as well as selling and signing books at The Wine Box in Torquay at 2.00pm on Friday 8^th November – wine and books – how can you resist? I am especially pleased about this, as part of the novel is set in Torquay. I will also be at Torrington Craft Fair on 7 December with copies of all my books. A few people have asked if they can get copies of my books at RootsTechLondon. I will have a limited number copies of Remember Then, as that is the subject of my talk but I am travelling in on public transport so will only have other titles if you ask in advance. I need to know by 9 October. I could mention that the festive season is only however many weeks away but I won’t.